​In November 2016 Trump warned that by attacking Assad the US would “end up fighting Russia”. In April 2017 Trump attacked Assad.

President Trump famously advised former President Obama not to attack Syria, but he has now made a complete U-turn on US policy. Having admitted the political reality that the legitimate and democratically elected President Assad could no longer be removed as per the aim pursued by the discredited Obama regime, Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian military airfield in Ash Sha’irat near Homs on 8 June 2017, describing the attack as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Idlib on 6 June which the US blamed on the Syrian government without a shred of evidence.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rightly described the strike as “a violation of international law” and “an act of aggression against a sovereign state under a far-fetched pretext”. It was carried out without UN or even US Congress approval and as usual without any prior investigation or proof of the facts.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also described the strike as “an aggression against a sovereign nation”, carried out “in violation of international law” and “under an invented pretext”.

Do we recognise a repetition of the disastrous policy on Iraq, where no chemical weapons were ever found, and which led to the destruction of that country and the death of innocent civilians across other countries of the Middle East and resulted the creation of ISIS?

​ Chemical

Washington is fully aware that Damascus does not possess any chemical weapons. On 23 June 2014 the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ahmet Üzümcü, announced in The Hague that the last of Syria’s chemical weapons had been shipped out of the country for destruction.

Following a chemical attack in Ghouta in 2013, which killed up to 1,500 people, Syria had joined the UN Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons (CBCW). Defence analyst Igor Nikulin, one of its former members, said that the US had acknowledged that Damascus had abandoned and destroyed all its chemical weapons in 2014. At that time Obama actually took credit for this, and the OPCW (Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons), which was controlled by the CBCW, subsequently received the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its role.

Furthermore, UN inspectors were present during the elimination process, which Nikulin said was “fully observed”. In January 2016 the OPCW formally announced its completion of the disarmament of chemical weapons in Syria. This was acknowledged as absolute mathematical proof that all chemical weapons were removed from Syria. Moreover, it was achieved on Russia’s initiative.

Nikulin calls the US “as fickle as the wind”: sometimes Washington declares that it is not against Assad but then changes its stance to reflect the will of bankers, defence contractors, and of course the hawkish remnants of the Obama administration. US officials recently indicated that Washington no longer intended to carry out a regime change in Syria. Nikki Haley, US Envoy to the UN, clearly stated that although policymakers in the United States still viewed President Assad as “a hindrance” [i.e., to US policy], Washington’s priority was “no longer to [...] focus on getting Assad out,” and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a major shift from Obama’s policy, said that Assad’s status would have to be “decided by the Syrian people”.

Imad Moustapha, Syria’s Ambassador to China and former Ambassador to the United States, warned that the illegal attack, launched under false pretences, may have “unpredictable consequences”: “Destroying Syrian military assets while the Syrian forces are engaged in a ferocious fight against terrorist groups constitutes a major and explicit support to [ISIS and] the al-Nusra Front.” It is also indicative of US support for terrorists and encourages them to proceed with further attacks. Why would Assad launch such an attack while he is winning the war against ISIS with legally invited Russian assistance? What benefit would it be to him? The idea is a preposterous trumped-up lie.

Neo-con puppet In a dramatic turnaround in his relationship with Trump, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has expressed great surprise at the strike on Syria, wondering where it will all end, while UKIP leader Paul Nuttall has also strongly condemned the attack, saying it was “rash, trigger-happy, nonsensical, and will achieve nothing.”

The ‘Neo-Con’ hawks – especially Clinton and McCain – are ecstatic that Trump appears to have joined their club. The usual motley of Washington’s pipsqueak bootlickers, including Fallon, Merkel and Hollande, obediently struck up their anti-Russian chorus, duly echoed by the half-wits of the slavish corporate media who did no serious research into the facts.

The voices of truth and sanity are few. They include the French National Front’s Marine Le Pen, who expressed “shock” and “strong condemnation” of Trump, while Willy Wimmer, former Vice President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and ex-State Secretary in the German Ministry of Defence, noted how the world continues to be “lied to in the interests of NATO” with every war. Infowars Editor-at-Large Paul Joseph Watson tweeted that Donald Trump “wasn’t Putin’s puppet after all”, as portrayed by the Western mainstream media, but “another deep state, Neo-Con puppet”

Most ominously, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned that the US attack on Syria had been conducted “on the verge of a military clash” with Russia, and added that President Trump had been “broken by the US power machine in just two-and-a-half months”: “The missile strike in Syria has revealed that the current US administration lacks independence and hangs on the Washington establishment that Donald Trump used to criticize strongly during the presidential race and his inauguration speech.”

Deep State’s poodle

Columnist Finian Cunningham explained Trump’s actions precisely:

​“In order to survive the pressure over ‘Russian stooge’ allegations, Trump is throwing some meat to the US War Party by giving them their long-sought-after direct military intervention in Syria. [...] Since Washington instigated its criminal regime change operation against the sovereign government of Syria in March 2011, the hawkish establishment was never quite satisfied with the strategy of using proxy terror groups to do the dirty work. Direct military intervention to topple the Syrian state has always been on the cards as the preferred method. [...] The advent of Trump to the White House was only a hitch for the powers that be. The relentless Deep State-driven media witch hunt against Trump over ridiculous allegations of being a Russian puppet has evidently prevailed.”

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.